From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107201 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2016 17:56:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 107188 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2016 17:56:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=tweaks, Hx-languages-length:1401, hey X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:56:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A9C013592; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAMHu7EW021134; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:56:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] New function value_has_address To: Joel Brobecker , Yao Qi References: <1479829721-22162-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1479829721-22162-2-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <20161122165046.GE4132@adacore.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161122165046.GE4132@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00646.txt.bz2 On 11/22/2016 04:50 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hey Yao, > >> +/* Return true if VALUE has address, otherwise return false. */ >> + >> +static int >> +value_has_address (const struct value *value) >> +{ >> + return (value->lval != lval_internalvar >> + && value->lval != lval_internalvar_component >> + && value->lval != lval_xcallable); > > I'm wondering about the function's name. Does a value that > lives in a register, for instance, really have an address? > For me, if there was a function value_has_address, it would > return nonzero only for lval_memory. I'm not too sure if > lval_computed would qualify or not. > > Perhaps, what you were looking for, is something like > value_lives_in_inferior? The intention of the function is to return true if the value uses the value.location.address union field as location: /* Location of value (if lval). */ union { /* If lval == lval_memory, this is the address in the inferior. If lval == lval_register, this is the byte offset into the registers structure. */ CORE_ADDR address; ... } location; I think that it's good that the names match. If one is renamed, so should the other, IMO. Maybe call the function value_has_address_location? I think it'd be good if the function's intro comment made this link more explicit. Actually, I see now that patch #3 tweaks the comment. Thanks, Pedro Alves